9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The captioned appeal arises for the second time before this Bench. The appellants had already made a pre-deposit of Rs. two lakhs in the initial round to hear the appeal. Therefore, after waiving the requirement of making any further pre-deposit, the appeal itself is being taken up for disposal. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellants M/s. Faithful Security Services, Coimbatore (FSS), had rendered security services during the period 4/2000 to 3/2004. In February, 2005, the officers of the Coimbatore Central Excise Commissionerate made a surprise visit to the premises of the appellants and inspected the records. It transpired that during the material period the appellants had paid service tax only in cases where they cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty were not sustainable. The Ld. Counsel also invites my attention to the finding of this Tribunal in Misc. Order No. 636/07, dated 3-8-2007, passed in the first round wherein it was observed that: several judicial authorities cited support waiver of penalty in the circumstances as in the subject case. He also submits that the department had set up a redressal mechanism since, which allowed relief in penalty up to 75 per cent of the duty demanded when tax demanded is paid promptly. The prayer in the appeal is reiterated. 5. The Ld. JCDR submits that the plea of bona tide belief cannot be accepted as the restriction of service tax liability of the assessees to tax received from their clients ceased in October 1998 and the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill the non-payment was detected by the departmental officers. However, the appellant made the payment of dues promptly before issue of show-cause notice. Considering the conduct of the assessee, certain leniency is warranted as regards the penalty imposed. The judicial authorities which ordered waiver of penalty cited had allowed that relief considering the prompt payment of the tax as a sufficient mitigating factor. I find that the Hon'ble. High Court of Bombay held as under in the following decisions as regards discretion to impose lower penalty under sections 76 and 78 of the Act. (a) CCE C v. Ashish Vasantrao Pantil [Central Excise Appeal No.4 of 2007, dated 18-10-2007] ...The ld. Tribunal considered the power conferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at was prescribed under the provision was the maximum amount of penalty leviable and the assessing authority had the discretion to levy a lesser amount. Under section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, a defaulter of service tax is liable to pay as penalty of Rs. 100 per day up to a maximum amount equal to the amount of the defaulted service tax. There seems to be a parallel between this provision and the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh statute considered by the Apex Court in the above case. In the present case, it appears, the lower authorities did not consider whether a lesser amount of penalty could be imposed on the party in the facts and circumstances of the case. (p. 43) 7. Respectfully following the above ratio, I reduce the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
